The core concern of ethics is doing the right thing.  Of course, the more complex the situation the more difficult it is to articulate a single right course of action.  One might think, for example, that the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” is unambiguously clear.   But, what about exceptions to the rule, say in the case of self-defence, either of a nation or an individual?  What does the commandment mean in the context of debates about euthanasia and abortion?  As soon as we get into these kinds of discussions, the quest for a simple answer gives way to a careful balancing of priorities and perspectives, and we begin to see that alongside a variety of perspectives there are a variety of approaches to ethics.

From a Christian perspective, we say that the Bible is an important resource.   We even go so far as to say it is God’s Word.  But caution must be exercised at this point, because of the expectations that tend to accompany this claim.  The Bible is not God’s Word in and of itself, as though God dictated its contents to faithful scribes.  Rather, it functions as God’s Word for a community of faith that is being shaped by God, and which sees engagement with the Bible as an essential part of the process.  The Bible narrates the story of salvation through a multitude of voices over a long period of time.  It reflects a gradual yet profound growth in understanding of who God is and the way in which God works.   It functions best when people allow themselves to be drawn into that story and become part of a living tradition.  God’s Word is not timeless; it is contextual.  It occurs through the process of engagement and interpretation.  If this were not so, we would not need a sermon on Sundays; all we would have to do is read the Bible and let it speak for itself.

Sometimes we fall into the trap of thinking that ethical dilemmas can be resolved by quoting a biblical text. But there are many problems with this approach.  It distorts the kind of book the Bible is, is selective in the texts its deems to be of relevance, fails to account sufficiently for different perspectives within scripture, produces answers that may be out of harmony with the spirit of biblical teaching, and tends towards legalism.  Such an approach is sincere but misguided.   It can also lead to an impasse when people of opposing views both find biblical passages to support their respective positions.

A more balanced approach is to draw not only on the Bible, but also on the teaching of the Church (giving particular attention to Biblical studies and theology), insights and data from other disciplines (e.g., moral philosophy, science and law), and pastoral considerations.   This last point is worth highlighting, because there is a tendency for ethical discussions to become very abstract, for moral pronouncements to be made “from on high”, and for people to be reduced to categories – e.g. welfare beneficiaries, foreigners, homosexuals, solo parents, the unemployed.

Let me give an example, say, abortion.  Beginning with the Bible, we might turn to texts like Psalm 139, which speak of God knitting together the parts of the body in the womb.  We would note that while this text was not written with the issue of abortion in mind, it makes an affirmation and reflects a biblical perspective on human life that does have a bearing on the subject.  One of the key issues it raises, for example, is that of personhood.   When does personhood begin?  On this issue we might ask what theologians, moral philosophers, doctors, scientists and the judiciary have said.  Where is there a convergence of opinion, where are there unresolved questions, and where are there clear differences of perspective?  There will be other issues too, such as the balancing of rights between the unborn child and the pregnant woman.

Suppose that at the end of this process one forms an opinion that abortion is wrong.  There still remains a number of practical considerations and the pastoral reality of each individual case.  To make abortion illegal would simply recreate an underground and unregulated industry in which health risks would abound. Moreover, even though one might be generally opposed to abortion, one would still want to give consideration to individual circumstances.

Thus it is conceivable that one may be opposed to abortion on ethical grounds, yet be supportive of a law that enables abortions to be performed under controlled circumstances, which will include counseling and support.  At the same time, one might choose to support community initiatives that aim to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and advocate alternatives to abortion.

We live in a time of increasingly complex ethical issues. It is not a time for hiding behind slogans or scouring the Bible for proof texts.  A more responsible engagement with scripture and the best Christian thinking is called for.